Gun Control Returns to the Supreme Court

The justices will hear oral arguments today in a major Second Amendment case.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today in a case that could reshape the national debate over the right to keep and bear arms.

At issue in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York is a New York City law that banned licensed handgun owners from possessing, carrying, or transporting their weapons outside of their homes, with one exception: The law let licensed owners transport their handguns, unloaded and locked in a container, to and from an authorized gun range within city limits.

The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association wants the Court to declare such restrictions constitutionally defective. The city "bans its residents from transporting a handgun to any place outside city limits—even if the handgun is unloaded and locked in a container separate from its ammunition," the association told the Court, "and even if the owner seeks to transport it only to a second home for the core constitutionally protected purpose of self-defense, or to a more convenient out-of-city shooting range to hone its safe and effective use."

New York City maintains that such restrictions are fully consistent with both the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. "The core right protected by the Second Amendment is the right to possess a handgun in the home for purposes of self-defense," the city told the Court. As a result, the regulation "does not substantially burden petitioners' Second Amendment rights."

In an obvious attempt to avoid an adverse Supreme Court ruling, New York City modified its regulation earlier this year and now allows licensed handgun owners to transport their weapons outside of the city under certain circumstances. But that modification failed to persuade the Court to immediately dismiss the case as moot. The constitutionality of the original regulation is still up for judicial review.

The Supreme Court last tackled the meaning of the Second Amendment roughly a decade ago in a pair of closely related cases. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court invalidated Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban for violating the constitutional right to armed self-defense. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court enforced that right against the states, striking down a similar handgun ban enacted by the Windy City.

Heller and McDonald each centered on a law that prohibited handgun possession within the home. Neither case explicitly addressed whether or not the Constitution also protects the right to carry guns in public.

At least two members of the current Supreme Court seem to think that the Second Amendment does apply outside of the home. In 2017, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissented from the Court's refusal to hear a case that asked whether the Constitution protects the right to carry guns in public. Here's what Thomas and Gorsuch had to say about that:

This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion. As we explained in Heller, to "bear arms" means to "wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person." The most natural reading of this definition encompasses public carry. I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.

If at least three more members of the Court are willing to co-sign that view, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York could go down in the books as a major victory for Second Amendment advocates.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

According to longtime libertarian activist Michael Hihn, libertarians should be demanding comprehensive gun safety legislation. Moreover, such legislation does not violate the Second Amendment in any way.

…libertarians should be demanding comprehensive gun safety legislation. Moreover, such legislation does not violate the Second Amendment in any way.

Depends on what your idea is of “comprehensive gun safety legislation.” Is your idea for the government to subsidize training classes on safe use of firearms? Is it to re-establish gun courses and responsible gun handling and usage in high school? I’m guessing no. It is more likely something like:

Universal background checks. Universal background checks make asking permission to buy a gun in the united states, universal. No longer can you buy a gun from your neighbor, or give one to your nephew or children. And a free society doesn’t ask their government for permission.

Red flag laws. Red flag laws are when leftists couldn’t enforce their utopia on the US at a national level, so they can still enforce it on their friends and family. Feeling like your opinion should be forced on others? Dripping in perceived self righteousness? Well congratulations, you can make some calls and the police will confiscate the guns of your gun loaded cranky uncle, hopefully without killing them or their dog. When the police confiscate their firearms, they will then fight tooth and nail to never, ever, give them back, ever. Maybe with enough lawyer money, which you know your uncle doesn’t have, he’ll get them back.

“Mandatory buyback” assault weapons This is a funny statement for two reasons. Firstly, it implies that the government sold you the firearm you purchased, which is blatantly false. By making this statement, they imply to low-information voters that your rights come from the government and the government “allowed” these people to buy guns. Second, it uses the “political term” – assault weapon. An assault weapon, to the left, is any weapon that is semi-automatic and takes a detachable magazine. Usually they show a picture of a AK or AR that is black in color and looks scary. However their definition can essentially be expanded to all semi-automatics, which is likely their goal anyways.

All of this “comprehensive gun safety legislation” is intended to reduce the incentive to buy and own guns. Which is essentially the goal of the left. They want a utopia where only government officials have guns, the government knows best, and we don’t need to open a history book to refute that.

Fundamentally this isn’t even a 2nd amendment case, or anyway could be decided in favor of the plaintiffs on multiple non-2nd amendment grounds.

First, we have FOPA, which among other things protects the right to transport a firearm from any place you may lawfully possess it, to any other place you may lawfully possess it, regardless of any state or federal laws to the contrary. Since there are, unambiguously, places outside of NYC where the plaintiffs could lawfully possess these firearms, the NYC law was directly in violation of the FOPA.

But, perhaps more basic, there’s the simple fact that the statute in question violated a basic element of private property rights, by prohibiting you from transporting lawfully owned property outside the city. There isn’t ANY category of property for which this could be constitutional! It’s a right as basic as they come, which should be upheld under the 9th amendment.

This sort of prohibition is, as far as I know, unheard of for ANY sort of property whatsoever. Transport regulations? Sure. But just flatly barring leaving with your property, without permission? I’ve never heard of such a thing.

While states used to have police powers to regulate Arms based on their state constitutions, that all changed with the 14th Amendment. All state residents have at a minimum all new federal rights and protections on rights listed in the Bill of Rights. State cannot deny these federal rights as of 1868.

2A: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

All gun control in the USA is unconstitutional.

This includes but is not limited to: Background checks, “Red flag laws”, limits on ammo and weapons, bans on any Armament, restrictions on purchases, restrictions on ownership, restrictions on manufacturing….

Horseshit. FEDERAL legislation re any weapon of personal issue is unconstitutional. Unit weapons of a militia are entirely ‘controllable’ by the Feds – esp since the Constitution also obligates the feds to ‘organize, arm, and discipline the militia’. The Feds can’t be obligated to pay for those arms and then let them get pissed away as private property. That is mere theft. The entire purpose of the 2nd was to ensure that the feds couldn’t abdicate their obligation to organize/arm the militia (say by choosing to fund the standing army instead) and then leave the states defenseless by also disarming the people as individuals.

Incorporation of the 2nd Amendment to the state level via the 14th is what these SC cases are about. And there is a problem in fully incorporating the 2nd like the others because unlike the others the 2nd is partially about individual rights ‘in community’ with others not just individual rights in isolation. NY has a poor case here since their law clearly has nothing to do with enhancing their own militia. Rather like all states now, they are choosing to abdicate many of their own constitutional responsibilities to the federal level cuz they don’t want to pay for their own governance anymore.

Funny how right-wingers like you are perfectly OK eliminating the states entirely when it comes to guns and abortion. And then jump up and down like idjits when others propose eliminating states on other issues.

Funny how right-wingers like you are perfectly OK eliminating the states entirely when it comes to guns and abortion. And then jump up and down like idjits when others propose eliminating states on other issues.

What do you mean “eliminating the states?”

What other issues are “right wingers” upset about when others propose this?

“…And there is a problem in fully incorporating the 2nd like the others because unlike the others the 2nd is partially about individual rights ‘in community’ with others not just individual rights in isolation…”

Let me see if I have this correct as to what you are saying:

Those arms “in community” would refer to those arms actually provided by the State/National Guards to their members (defined as the “organized” (read that as “well-regulated militia), as opposed to the “unorganized” militia, in which members could/should/might provide their own weapons.

If you are saying that those government-provided weapons could come under State jurisdiction re transportation, then, yeah, I could see how that could be so, since Guards are also under State control.

On the other hand, privately-owned arms, owned by individuals defined as that group known as “the People,” is a different matter entirely, since they are not held in a “community,” but by individuals exercising a individual right.

Those arms “in community” would refer to those arms actually provided by the State/National Guards to their members

Broader than merely ‘organized’ militia v unorganized militia. Has to do with the way the natural right of defense is phrased. It is both the right of self-defense and the right of ‘common defense’. The militia – organized or not – IS itself entirely about that right of common defense. The modern state-level replacement for that is really police/sheriff.

The SC has very clearly stated that the right of self-defense is federally protected and I agree with both that view and its incorporation to the state level. But I suspect that this law was chosen because ‘transport in a container’ is more about infringing the ‘keep’ right (ie the place where you are and the place you will be) – with a side-effect that said law can also be used to abuse 4th amendment.

Not because the SC wants to expand the ‘bear’ right into shall-carry/weapontype/etc. And certainly not for the purposes of undermining a ‘state militia’ (whether NG or police) by mandating it as subordinate to an individual right. They would have picked a different law if that’s what where they wanted to go.

“Broader than merely ‘organized’ militia v unorganized militia. Has to do with the way the natural right of defense is phrased. It is both the right of self-defense and the right of ‘common defense’. The militia – organized or not – IS itself entirely about that right of common defense. The modern state-level replacement for that is really police/sheriff.”

Correct. Anywhere which I am aware, local laws permit intervening, and using force, up to and including deadly force, if justified by individuals to come to the aid of family members and strangers alike, to aid them in defending themselves. It’s not much of a reach to define such an action, especially if a group of people, “organized” or not, do such, that they are acting as a “militia.” At one time, as I am sure you know, responding to such “hue and cry” was actually an obligation of private citizens in many nations, before professional policing became the norm.

“The SC has very clearly stated that the right of self-defense is federally protected and I agree with both that view and its incorporation to the state level. But I suspect that this law was chosen because ‘transport in a container’ is more about infringing the ‘keep’ right (ie the place where you are and the place you will be) – with a side-effect that said law can also be used to abuse 4th amendment.”

Also agreed. Most States (even California), for instance, recognize campsites and hotel rooms as “temporary dwellings” wherein one can both “keep and bear arms,” and NOT locked in a box. Certainly, it seems pretty obvious, that if one has the right to armed self defense in your RV or tent, that one must be able to transport a weapon to that “dwelling.”

There are “private” armies, if you want to use that description, which are not under federal control. All State-financed military units are, ultimately, at the Fed’s discretion, under Federal control. This dates to a SCOTUS decision circa 1819, IIRC.

For instance, there is, or used to be a “California State Militia,” but it was a completely private operation. A buddy of mine, back in the 80’s, was a member. I remember they ran a “mock invasion” of a local small town with the local sheriff as part of terrorism-response training program.

“(c) In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain defense forces. A defense force established under this section may be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces.”

That phrase is not some nonsensical ‘terminology of the day’ that means whatever the fuck you want it to mean. That phrase was a direct copy from the Articles of Confederation:

every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accounted, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage.

And there is of course ample contemporaneous documentation and opinions about how the Constitution changed the Articles – even specifically re the role of the feds and states re militia. Esp since the Constitution was created specifically as a response to Shay’s rebellion where the STATE militia had to protect FEDERAL property (Springfield Armory) because under the Articles the feds had no ability to protect its own property within any existing state.

There is however zero documentation that the Constitution was actually devised by libertarian anarchists to undermine the states in favor of Shays.

That phrase is not some nonsensical ‘terminology of the day’ that means whatever the fuck you want it to mean. That phrase was a direct copy from the Articles of Confederation:

Right. However the word “well regulated” isn’t the same common meaning of the word then as now.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

So the words in the 2nd amendment doesn’t mean that the 2nd amendment is to be “regulated” in our common usage of the word. It was more closely along the lines of “in good working order” rather than “government controlled.” In our common usage, it is meant to be controlled by the government. However, It was very clear that the founders wanted the people individually armed.

There is however zero documentation that the Constitution was actually devised by libertarian anarchists to undermine the states in favor of Shays.

There is documentation that the founders respected their spirit of resistance and found their resistance honorable! This is a letter written from Thomas Jefferson to his nephew, specifically talking about Shay’s rebellion. In the letter he says:

The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted?

He calls their rebellion honorable!

Then says:

“I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.”

He said their rebellion was founded in ignorance, and they should be set right to the facts and pardoned! He said “Let them take arms.” He wished to preserve the “spirit of resistance.” And his infamous quote…“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.”

that pesky Second names a right, then declares that right shall not be infroinged. Full stop. No quailficatioins. NO ONE, NOHTIHING can be allowed to limit, restict, license, monetise, impose a fee or other precondition on that right. that includes any government, individual, or entity of any kind. It SHALL OTT BE infringed. Doesn’t even sayt Congress shall make no law….. (and they’ve amade plenty, all unconstitutions, as they ARE infringments. Outlawed. Can’t do it.

End of story.

Its not like, say, abortion or sodomy, neither of which are given to FedGov to bear any authority over them. Since Feds are not given those, and fed law does not prohibit them to the states (except in the FACT that the right to LIFE must be upheld, even if that life is VERY tiny.. we ALL know exactly what that thing in there will beome if allowed to and not squished like a bug or sliced up by a Blend-tec.

So, no, since infringing upon our RIGHT to arms is prohibited to the States by that Second Article, they may not infringe upon it either, just as FedGov may not.

You also forget what “miltia” were in the days of the Founders. EVERY able bodied male was part of it, whether a formal group that met Tuesday evening for drill, marksmanship on Saturday, and working together on keeping their equipment in good condition. They all used their own weapons, and thoise were of many kinds.

So gitchyer grubby paws OFF my guns, AND my ammo, AND ,my bumpsticks, AND ,my magazines, AND my Mother May I Cards I should NOT be required to accept as INFRINGEMENTS. YOU seem to be pretty free to express your opinion, as erroneous as they are. In the same way, even more so, I WILL remain free to keep and bear such arms as I can select given my personal circumstances. I had opportunity to return to California some years back, and it took a whole thirty seven glorious seconds for me to realise my RIGHTS are far more precious to me than any money I might be able to keep after Scamminn Nuisance gets himself done with it all. I even hate driving into or through that sorry state of affairs……

Please point out that section of either the Constitution or its Amendments that “obligates the feds to ‘organize, arm, and discipline the militia’” and explain the basis for your assertion that the motive behind the 2nd was basically economic.

I’m curious about one thing, and maybe some of our resident gun control advocates could answer: what public safety purpose is supposedly being addressed by this law? Put another way, how is the public safety endangered by a gun owner taking his pistol to a firing range outside of the city limits?

Maybe they will. They’ve been refusing 2nd amendment cases since McDonald, while the lower courts in some circuits were effectively reversing Heller, limiting it to the very specifics of the case and ignoring the general reasoning.

It’s promising that they granted cert. here, since this wasn’t a case the gun controllers wanted the Court to take. And this law was particularly egregious, it’s hard to imagine the Court upholding it unless they were just going to go ahead and reverse Heller.

As I wrote above, you don’t even have to reach the 2nd amendment to strike down this law, it was so awful on so many grounds.

Once upon a time the job of the judiciary was to be a check on legislative power. No more. Now the job of a judge is to conjure up contorted interpretations of the constitution in order to justify legislation that is clearly unconstitutional. I’ve listened to a few interviews with judges who quit their job because they were effectively barred from striking down legislation that was in violation of the constitution. There are no checks and balances anymore. Just collusion between branches.

That’s scarcely contrary to what Sarcasmic wrote. A judge’s obligation to conform to Supreme court precedent precludes most unconstitutional laws from being struck down by the lower courts at this point.

Not that you’d expect most of them to be so inclined anyway; They do a pretty good job of identifying and keeping out of the judiciary anybody who’d be that principled on the topic.

playing devil’s advocate, I’d guess that they’ll try to say it helps them catch illegal guns more often.

In actuality, its because guns are bad and scary and anyone who owns one is literally Hitler, so we need to track anyone who owns one. Maybe even put some sort of identifying mark on them, like a gold star, so everyone is aware of these evil people.

Not really. I’m just trying to be fair. My view of this law is that it is nothing more than harassment of innocent people who have followed all the bullshit rules NYC has already piled on their backs.

Now, if somebody thinks my view of the law is wrong they’re free to correct me and I’ll be interested to hear what they say. But I’m getting the impression that gun control advocates don’t think they have to come up with even a half-assed reason for their infringements anymore.

The justices on the Court who are on their side certainly aren’t going to demand good reasons for the infringements. They take the point of view that there’s no right here to infringe, and are a bit irate about having to pretend otherwise for public consumption.

Not to be snarky, but with live with people who are simple scared that guns exist, and feel threatened by the mere fact that other people might have a gun. To them, the public safety is at peril unless all guns are eliminated.

It’s not a matter of whether or not “bear arms” means to carry arms, it’s simply whether or not “the right to keep and bear arms” means you have a right to keep and bear arms. Obviously, since our Founding Fathers couldn’t have foreseen airplanes or refrigerators or lava lamps, the Constitution is an anachronistic relic of history and the whole thing can and should be totally ignored. At least according to a significant portion of the electorate and of the Supreme Court.

That same portion of the electorate, and sadly some politicians, keeps bringing hunting into the matter as well.

The founders had just gotten done fighting a war against their own tyrannical government by using personally owned weapons, but we’re supposed to believe they were concerned about our ability to shoot deer when they wrote 2A.

Ignore the Constitution? The basis of all US law? Wow so you are okay with a totalitarian government where the people have no rights, only privileges granted by the Government? The fact you would post such a comment means you are either a troll having some fun or a complete imbecile.

While I get what you’re saying, the government creates all sorts of rights that are not Natural Rights.

For example, the right to jury trial. The right to public and speedy trial. The right to assistance of counsel for defense. The right to a trial in the district where the crime shall have been committed. The right to face one’s accusers. The right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation….

“The 2A doesn’t grant the right, it places limitations on government’s infringement on the right that already exists.”

From what I have seen, the vast majority of lawyers and judges would disagree. You can’t use natural rights as a defense in court. Maybe someone can correct me, but my impression is that the courts only care about what is spelled out in legislation. If no legislation exists saying that you have said rights, then the rights do not exist. Legally anyway.

Parental rights are Natural rights. These unlisted rights have been argued in court before.

The anti-gun laws should fail for multiple reasons. No federal or state constitutional power to ban products or services. States could theoretically change their constitutions to allow bans. The US Constitution would also require an amendment to ban.

The 2A specifically prohibits the federal gov (and thanks to 14A prohibits states) from even infringing on the People’s right to keep and bear Arms. This would prohibit regulation too.

This makes Armaments regulation and ban proof, as the US Constitution is currently setup.

As a parent who has been through the courts, I can say that parental rights are definitely not protected. On paper I’ve got a 50% say in the welfare of my daughter, but the courts gave mom the final decision power. That means I have a 0% say because mom will do the opposite of what I believe is right, just out of spite. But because she has final say the courts don’t give a fuck. Even if I could document that mom gives 0% consideration to my input 100% of the time, because she has final say it won’t matter. Parental rights? I have none.

You must remember though that some courts are tasked with deciding WHICH PARENT gets more rights over a child than the other parent. Courts are established to resolved disputes. Sounds like your child custody was a dispute brought before the court voluntarily, giving them jurisdiction over that dispute.

That is very different than the state stripping away natural Parental rights of both parents.

It wasn’t voluntary on my part. Mom and an activist clinician conspired to make false reports and false statements to lawyers and judges, keeping consistent with one another, to remove my daughter from my home and place her with her mom. For child support. That’s it. Mom doesn’t do shit to be a parent. Just asked the doctor to keep giving the poor girl more and more meds. Drug her into compliance. Girl is on antidepressants, sedatives, stimulants, and anti-psychotics. Breaks my heart. But there is nothing I can do.

Ten years old. This is doing permanent damage to her brain. But I’m the “uncooperative” parent because I dare to question the doctors. Mom is the model parent because she not only cooperates, but asks for more drugs. I’m the bad guy because I express concern over my daughter going from slender and energetic to obese and lazy thanks to side effects from the fist-fulls of pills they feed her every day. But she’s compliant now, and that’s all they care about. The system is beyond fucked up.

If by legislation you include the Bill of Rights, the 9A spells out in black letter than those rights listed shall not be read by the government as a limit on the rights one possesses. This would mean that there exists rights not granted by statute or text. As such, those rights must exist outside government power… it is an absurd position to state otherwise. Thus, the only logical conclusion is that the BoR is based on natural rights. Further evidence of this is the Declaration, which, while not law, does spell put context in which the nation was founded and the principles that justified our governments existence separate from the crown and fully subordinate to the people.

Furthermore, the 2A does spell out a right quite explicitly.

But if you mean legislation and not counting the BoR/Constitution… you have another absurd position. That would mean that there existed a time between ratification of the Const and BoR qnd the later passage of Congressional legislation that mentioned a right for the first time that during this period no citizen had any rights. Like I said… absurd.

It used to be the case where anything not forbidden is allowed. “It’s a free country! I can do whatever I want as long as it isn’t illegal!”

But it’s becoming the case where that which is not expressly allowed is forbidden. “Who said you could do that? You can’t do anything unless you’ve asked permission from, or been commanded by, someone in government!”

Correct, Cruikshank actually expresses the correct source of our right to keep guns for self defense. So the right to own guns for self defense was a preexisting right and has nothing to do with the 2A. The 2A concerns the state militias which were supposed to be an important check on tyranny by the federal government. So the Framers believed exactly what happened in the Civil War would happen if the federal government was tyrannical—federal Army officers would be loyal to their state and not the federal government.

No those are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights because the Founders believed they were natural rights and mandatory for people to be truly free. Remember, they fought a war against a government that could arrest, hold and try you with nothing more than allegations by others and it was your responsibility to prove you were innocent rather than the Crown probe you were guilty. None of these were created by the Government but have been expanded over time by the courts as clear shortcoming became clear. I have no idea how you think they were created by government when many listed are clearly stated in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th amendments.

I can see Kavanaugh agreeing with Thomas and Gorsuch, so we’d only need 2 others who’d support the constitution. Didn’t Reason have an article up a few months ago where they showed that NY City cops were tracking gun owners license plates (they have to register to legally own a gun) and would pull them over when they left/entered the city in order to search them for guns?

If you believe in the Constitution and 4th Amendment, that is a violation.

But once you accept the progressive view that the Constitution is an outdated document written by slaveowners and it and its amendments should be ignored in the name of progress, “no rights are absolute”, etc, then stop and frisk, stop and search, without probable cause is just fine and dandy. Random gun searches without probable cause are justified: “There can be no right to privacy in regard to armament….” – Norval Morris, Gordon Hawkins The Honest Politician’s Guide to Crime Control (U Chicago Press, 1970). Hell, Chuck Schumer defended burning babies at Waco in the name of gun control. What do you expect out of New York if the subject is guns?

The core right protected by the Second Amendment is the right to possess a handgun in the home for purposes of self-defense,” the city told the Court. As a result, the regulation “does not substantially burden petitioners’ Second Amendment rights.”

This argument is easily refuted by the text of the second amendment itself. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Saying you cannot bear your arms at all is definitely an infringement on keeping and bearing arms. Done and done.

I’m not sure why constitutional law ends up so complicated. Our justices need to reconcile with the fact that sometimes they are not going to agree with the law. “Shall not be infringed” is pretty broad in scope. The only question should be how much that language binds the states and municipalities. Too bad they completely killed the 9th and 10th amendments. They might have been useful in cases like this.

Exceptions are written into the Constitution or they don’t exist.Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

If you want exceptions, repeal the 14A and amend the US Constitution to add exceptions.

There are reasonable exceptions such as the possession of nuclear materials or nuclear weapons. However the government saying “you can have a gun, but can only use it where and how we say” is not reasonable. Would it be okay for the government to say you can own a car but only drive it where and when the government decides you can? That is not reasonable.

There are not “reasonable exceptions” for nuclear materials or nuclear weapons. Americans can have those too.

Remember though, you cannot violate anyone else’s property rights from radiation. That and you need billions and billions of dollars, thousands of people to assist YOU wanting a nuclear device, and getting the technology.

Meanwhile, some asshole progtard legislator in Virginia is already working on a bill that he claims would ban “assault weapons”, but in reality would attempt to ban almost every single weapon capable of firing more than 10 rounds, including semi-automatics:

I saw that. I feel like that would also be thrown before the Supreme court, but it shouldn’t need to be, it’s so friggin ridiculous that this asshole should be laughed out of office and never be given a position of power ever again.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

Complicating the matter is that there are really only 8 Justices right now. Assuming Roberts wants to chicken out on deciding the case, and the 4 conservatives hold firm, even if the ‘liberals’ side with Roberts it’s only a tie.

Would Roberts be willing to switch to striking down in order to break that tie? I’m assuming he’s still merely a squish, not actually on the other side.

Remember when Scalia and Renquist died while serving a justices?? The only job easier than Supreme Court justice is president of the USA. Even bring a senator is a harder job than being a justice and they often die while holding office because it is such as easy job.

New York City maintains that such restrictions are fully consistent with both the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. “The core right protected by the Second Amendment is the right to possess a handgun in the home for purposes of self-defense,” the city told the Court. As a result, the regulation “does not substantially burden petitioners’ Second Amendment rights.”

This should be laughed out of the court. “You are not allowed to transport a firearm does not jive with “the right of the people to keep and bear”.

Traditionally Texas heavily regulated handguns outside the home so that means most handgun regulations outside the home are constitutional pursuant the Kavanaugh standard. I think what we will end up with is a right to open carry that can be effectively regulated as a very limited right. So that means that Justice Thomas will get to write a dissent bashing Reagan as a racist for outlawing open carry when scary looking black men started exercising the right in 1968.

Because Kavanaugh will look to the “traditions“ of Texas and other states to determine the scope of our right to carry. Kavanaugh is a justice because W Bush called Collins personally and urged her to support his former right hand man so you can bet Kavanaugh won’t “mess with Texas”.

So we have a right to open carry that can be regulated liberally like how Texas for decades heavily regulated handguns outside the home and how Bush 41 signed guns in school zone legislation. But make no mistake then governor Reagan’s legislation to disarm scary black men is unconstitutional on several grounds, but then racists like Reagan tend to not think too highly of our several amendments of the Constitution. 😉

The Texas Constitution is concerned mainly with stopping honest citizens from killing elected looters by calling them out under the code duello. The thing runs to abt 80000 words. This is equal to both Kleptocracy party platforms put together, or to the Brazilian Constitution as rewritten in 1988 immediately after Atlas Shrugged was published in Portuguese–for the sole purpose or protecting Italian-style fascism from Ayn Rand’s free trade amendment. Texas has been an “honest graft” state since we suckered the feds into assuming our bankruptcy in exchange for the chance to loot California for gold.

The strict hand gun regulations were on the books for decades until 1995. So Texas was a strong pro-2A state all those decades but the 2A supporting legislators still believed the 2A allowed for regulating handguns outside the home due to concerns about crime. Pursuant the Kavanaugh doctrine we look to history and tradition along with the text when interpreting the Constitution.

Reagan even signed a law greatly restricting open carry due to concerns about scary black men with guns but I think that was unconstitutional and some form of open carry must be permitted even if scary black men are doing the carrying. 😉

The problem with the original ordinance was it restricted use and transport of a legally owned and registered firearm only to a few place within NYC determined by the government. The 2nd amendment is a limitation on government, not the people. If they law was constitutional, why did NYC change it and attempt to avoid a review by the SCOTUS? The other huge problem with such laws is they seek to essentially eliminate a right, guaranteed in the Constitution, by using vague standards only a very small number of well connected people can meet. Why is Bloomberg, as a private citizen, permitted to have armed security yet an ordinary person is not allowed to have any way to protect themselves? The simple truth is the progressive left are the supporters of big government and wealthy elitists. They cheer monopolistic companies like Google, Amazon and others because they support left leaning causes. The left wants to seize power and change this nation into the “state” they desire and the only two barriers to their success are the two things they attack most, the 1st and 2nd amendments. The Founders understood why these rights were so critical for a free people and it is why they were listed before all the others.

Gilbert Ernest McGill (Firearms Policy Review) taught me that the anti-gun elite favor the Hobbesian absolute state enforced by a Webberian state monopoly on arms: government of the people, by the government, for the government, enforced by mercenary Hessians loyal to the government, and are disdainful of the American Revolutionary principles of government of the people, by the people, for the people, defended by volunteers raised from the people.

Kavanaugh’s standard will win the day, which means the vast majority of gun laws will remain in place because traditionally Texas heavily regulated handguns outside the home and currently the federal government has regulated machine guns out of the general gun owning population.

NYC: “The core right protected by the Second Amendment is the right to possess a handgun in the home for purposes of self-defense….”

SCOTUS in DC v Heller: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

Reading is fundamental. Comprehension is not optional.

NYC banning a legal gun owner from taking that gun to a gun range outside NYC or taking it to a second home outside NYC, both in jurisdictions where it would be legal for them to have and use the gun, is an example of the overreaching and pointless gun laws that the anti-gun nuts consider “reasonable regulation”.

I hope NY keeps it up until the Sullivan Act of 1911 is declared unconstitutional.

“[T]he right to possess a handgun in the home for purposes of self-defense” is not the only right constitutionally protected, but all traditionally lawful purposes: hunting, self-defense, military marksmanship training, recreational shooting, collection of curios and relics, to name a few.

You mean like how Roberts helped Paul Ryan get an extra $300 billion in tax cuts by upholding the Romneycare individual mandate?? Do you not like more tax cuts that increase stock buybacks or something??

The mass shooters since 1998 are suicidal lunatics (generally young men) that are engaging in copycat suicides…unfortunately more guns won’t stop mass shooters because they want to go out in a “blaze of glory” like the Columbine killers.

Remember Richard Nixon, the non-crook who violated 2A to placate communist dictators? The surrender movement backed that, and was then horrified by the Reagan/Keyworth/Teller High Frontier SDI initiative which revived 2A despite Tricky’s Treason. The amendment speaks to a Free (not slave) society, and arms the State militia (including every citizen) “invaded or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” How altruist brainwashing has twisted this into a “self defense” issue is for psychologists. Section 8 of Article I, and Article IV, Section 4 combine with 2A to make self-defense national defense, which indeed they are. If any Amendment needs to go it is 16A these Kristallnacht Lawmakers seek to expand to include the rest of the Communist Manifesto.